Fat Camp: Understanding the Manning offense - Part 3

Ted BartlettMar 31, 2012 2:00 PM

Hello, friends, and welcome to Part 3 of our series about the Manning offense that we can expect to see in Denver. Today, we’ll focus on the running game, which I think will schematically have a lot of similarity to the base running game we’ve seen in Denver the past three seasons. The philosophy will be very different, though, and it’s on that aspect which I will dedicate most of my focus.

If you missed Parts 1 or 2, and want to catch up, please see these links:

Let’s begin by asking a simple question – why do football teams run the ball? The main answer that I would give is that it’s tradition. American football was invented in 1869, and the forward pass wasn’t introduced to the game until 1906. It actually was introduced as a safety measure, because a bunch of people got killed or seriously hurt playing the game in 1905, and President Teddy Roosevelt demanded rules changes. (The horror of government overreach!) The rules committee that was formed was the precursor of today’s NCAA.

For those first 37 years, running the ball was the only way that offense was conducted. What that produced was a bunch of “knowers” (coaches, etc.) who only knew the run game. Some coaches, notably Eddie Cochems of St. Louis University, adopted the forward pass aggressively, but most still wanted to run the ball. Generationally, the theory has persisted among coaches that running the ball is the conservative and risk-averse (and therefore smart) approach to playing the game. When you throw the ball, only one out of three outcomes is good, and all that horse manure. In their minds, that often means a 66% chance of a bad outcome, and 33% for good. Nobody ever said you had to be very smart to be a football coach.

Sports culture is one of stodginess and conservatism, and football is right there with baseball as the leaders in that category. This is going to cause some bitching, no doubt, (which I plan to ignore), but it’s important to what I am getting at, vis-a-vis football. Conservatism is many things, but to me, the fundamental feature of it as a mindset is an unwillingness to accept and incorporate new information as it becomes available, and change your attitudes and actions based upon that information. Conservative people believe what they believe, and it’s been working for them up to now, so they don’t even want to hear about your new information, unless it reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. This is why Rush Limbaugh exists - to tell people with conservative mindsets that they're right about everything, and that since they have "common sense", there's nothing more to learn. You could discover the greatest new information ever, which should change everything, but people with a conservative mindset tend to be uncomfortable with change for most any reason.

Anyway, conservatism is certainly the mindset of the average football coach - they know what works, and they’re sticking with what they know. This is why you see coach after coach say that they’re playing the percentages by punting on 4th and 1 in plus territory. They’re absolutely not playing the percentages, though; they’re actually choosing to take the short money in a commonly accepted way, which will prevent the morons in the media from criticizing them. (And that feels solid.)

John Fox is a conservative, old-school football coach. He punts too often, and he likes the run game too much. There’s a lot of scholarly information out there that strongly indicates that his instincts on both scores are dead wrong, but he goes with them anyway, because he is who he is. He’s about to be cured of some of that, though. The medicine’s name is Peyton Manning. Just wait until Manning waves off the punt team running onto the field. I guarantee it will happen at least five times this year.

When you have Manning at QB, your preference on every snap should be the throw the football. Actually, basic math says that all things being equal, you should prefer the pass to the run on every play, practically no matter who your QB is. For each of the last three seasons, the average NFL team has gained exactly two more yards per play (using PFR’s NY/A metric) throwing the ball than running the ball. In 2011, they got 6.3 yards per play throwing, and 4.3 rushing. In both 2010 and 2009, they got 6.2 and 4.2. The only team that has run the ball as well as they’ve passed it was John Fox’s 2010 (woefully under-talented, by design) Carolina Panthers, who achieved 4.2 yards per attempt both running and passing.

Running the ball is basically choosing to leave two yards per play on the table, so why the hell do it? The smart answer is that you should run the ball to help make the pass available and successful, because all things aren’t equal. If you wanted to be the first team ever to completely ignore the run, and pass on every snap, defenses would adjust and play coverage on every snap.

Having some success running the ball opens up the play action game and forces defenses to commit an eighth defender to the box. You run the ball as a complement to your passing game, which is superior in importance. Forget about the stupid question of whether you run to set up the pass, or pass to set up the run. Just recognize that synergies are created in both activities if you can do both with some degree of effectiveness, and if the defense doesn’t know which one you plan to do now.

Personally, I thought the Broncos’ first 2011 game against the Chiefs was kind of cool, in a trivia sense, and in the sense of seeing how frustrated the Chiefs looked by getting the ball run down their throats play after play. I felt the demoralization for them, and it hurt (so good!). I don’t want to see many/any more Broncos games like that, though.

I expect this year’s Broncos team will prioritize throwing the ball highly, and will run primarily when defenses are hell-bent on covering the pass, and have thus left themselves vulnerable. That’s why I spent Part 2 talking about presnap recognition, because it’s mostly going to determine whether a given play will be a pass or a run.

You’ll remember from Part 1 that I expect the Broncos to use only two personnel groupings, which I designate as 11 and 12. I expect them to be in 2-by-2 alignment 95% of the time, and I expect the same players to play in the same specific spots, snap after snap. Why is this so important to reiterate? I really want to drive home the concept that while the Broncos will have very few plays, they will all be available on any given snap, and a formation or personnel grouping won’t ever prevent an advantageous play from being called. That’s how you can have an offense that is entirely callable from the line of scrimmage, yet is versatile enough to attack any weakness of the defense.

I expect the Broncos to continue to use both zone and angle blocking concepts in the running game, and to use a total of about six running plays. I’m now going to draw and explain those plays, starting with the most basic one:

Outside Zone

The Colts ran this play all the time with Manning as the QB, and it’s familiar to anybody who was a Broncos fan while Mike Shanahan coached the team. The offensive line moves right, the handoff is made wide of the Guard, and the QB has bootleg action back to the left, setting up eventual play action. The RB is looking for a crease to the outside or a cutback lane inside, and is going to take one cut and go.

The Manning offense favors this play because given the even 2-by-2 alignment, the defense is most often going to be evenly spread with two safeties deep. If you run this outside zone play quickly and efficiently, the offense can almost always get a hat on every hat, and open up big running lanes. The backside CB, OLB, and Safety probably can’t get into the play, so the offense has a numbers advantage. It’s all about hitting quickly, though.

Inside Zone

This is the complementary run play to the Outside Zone, and its main function is that the defense can’t just read the initial movement of the offensive linemen, and run outside. By running Inside Zone, the offense forces the defense to have to read the QB/RB action and mesh point as well. It slows them down a step, making the Outside Zone play work better. Again, this is a quick hitter. It’s also the primary play construct from which Manning runs the vertical play action game.

Outside Power

The Colts didn’t do much with angle blocking, but this Broncos team has been doing it for three years, and I expect from John Fox’s comments that they’ll continue to mix approaches. LG Zane Beadles is a very good puller, and the design of this play calls for him to be the cleanup man / lead blocker. The key blocks are as follows:

LT – Absolutely must get his face across the backside DT’s waist, which is difficult. He’s cutting that DT off from being able to flow to the playside.

C – Has to get out on the Mike LB in space quickly, while preferably giving the playside DT a shove on his way there, to help the RG square up fully on the guy.

Playside TE (Y) – The best block possible on the playside OLB is preferred. That will leave the pulling Guard free to hit the unblocked SS and open up a strong possibility for a big play.

Trap

This is an old-school play that is angle blocked, also with a puller from the backside. It’s quite different than the Outside Power, though:

Backside TE – Has to cut the backside DE.

LT – Has to locate the backside OLB, and get out on him in space.

C – Cuts off the backside pursuing DT, who wants to follow the pulling LG.

RG – Has to get out on the MLB quickly, and is assigned to ignore the 3T DT on his outside shoulder, who is being invited into the backfield.

RT – Will hook the playside DT and block him to the outside.

Playside TE (Y) – Must block the playside OLB in space.

The offense wants the playside DT to come straight forward into the backfield, where he’ll be crushed by the backside pulling G from the side. That is designed to open up an inside hole for a quick-hitting running play. Every offensive lineman has a good angle, and the most difficult block is actually that of the backside TE, which is also the least important one.

I wanted to take the opportunity now to note the formation, and the implications of it. If Andre Caldwell were in the slot left instead of the backside TE, the backside OLB would most probably be a CB lined up across from him. That would change the LT’s assignment to hooking the backside DE. Again, these plays can be run from any formation the Broncos will use.

Counter

I expect the Counter to be used pretty rarely, because it’s a play that has a delayed timing component to it, and Manning tends not to favor that a lot. You can run the counter action off of any other run play you use, but I am showing off the Trap action here.

Basically, the RB takes the handoff, goes one step to the frontside, and then cuts back to the backside. The idea is that the misdirection on the play slows down pursuit by backside defenders. This isn’t a bread-and-butter play, obviously, but it’s good for setting those plays up.

Draw

The primary misdirection element of the Manning offense over the past five or six years has actually been a fake draw out of the shotgun, followed by a quick WR smoke screen to the backside. When the draw is actually on, though, Manning normally does run it from the Shotgun. I’m showing it here from under center for consistency's sake, but in terms of tendencies , look for the gun.

This is supposed to look like a pass: from the way the receivers release, to the way the offensive linemen step backwards like they’re pass protection, to how the QB has his eyes downfield, and how the RB hesistates like he’s looking for somebody to block. From under center, the handoff is delayed and comes deep in the backfield. From the Shotgun, it’s quicker, but also happens deep in the backfield.

The key is that everybody plays it like it’s a pass. Most crucial is that the line gives their pass rushers outside releases and rides them out of the run lane that the RB is going to take. This works best against man-to-man defenses in passing situations like 2nd and 10.

A Note About RB Personnel

I wanted to take a minute to talk about personnel. RB is a somewhat devalued position in this Manning offense, because the team doesn’t plan to run the ball all that much. He’d actually rather have a guy who can block and catch as well as he can run, rather than a guy like Adrian Peterson who can’t block or catch worth a damn.

I mentioned this in the last couple weeks, but to reiterate, I think a healthy Knowshon Moreno is an ideal RB for this kind of scheme. Playing in a pass-heavy scheme is what he was drafted for, and his most notable strength as a player is his versatility.

To read the comments on this site and others, you’d think that Knowshon has been a bad player. I have no faith in him. Why don’t we just cut him? To me, when he’s been healthy and played, he’s been a pretty solid player. Maybe not a twelfth-overall player in the Draft, but that’s no reason to throw away a talented player who can contribute. The Draft pick is a sunk cost; the player is an asset who can help the team.

That’s not even mentioning Willis McGahee, who had an outstanding season in 2011. He’s less accomplished as a blocker and receiver than Moreno, but more accomplished as a runner. He can do some big damage running that Outside Zone with six blockers on five defenders, trust me on that.

The point I am getting to is that I see everybody and their brother pining for Doug Martin or David Wilson or whatever other RB in the first or second round. I suspect that that’s the skill-position bias that happens because the success or failure of those players is easily measurable. I wanted Martin, he ran for 1,000 yards as a rookie, therefore I am the smartest man alive! That kind of thing.

I would say that the Broncos have much bigger needs at all three levels of their defense than they do at RB, and that they’d be wise to avoid playing fantasy football. I’d be pretty locked into taking the best DT available, and maybe even repeating that in Round 2. It’s hard to measure immediate impact there, but the Broncos have a giant need at that position.

That’s all I have for today, friends. I’ll be back with Part 4 on Tuesday, where we’ll start working through a couple of key passing concepts. Have a nice weekend.

1. I’m not in the arguing business, I’m in the saying what I think business.
2. I get my information from my eyes.

Great article Ted, can you please check the link to Part 2 as it just recycles us back to the current home page with no Part 2 link available. Mahalo!

Posted by Hulamau on 2012-04-02 15:22:27

sam,

Teams run for a lot of different reasons--when you are ahead, you run the ball to control the clock. In my opinion, teams that win aren't winning because they are calling running plays. They are calling running plays because they are winning. The note about using the run to set up the pass is another big key--but you need to call a LOT fewer runs than most NFL teams do in order to make this happen. NFL coaches still call too many runs from a game theory standpoint.

Posted by Daniel McVicker on 2012-04-02 07:34:06

Thanks, Ted. Good work on this one. My football file is filling up with yours, Doc, and TJ's stuff. Sorry Doug.

Posted by BlackKnigh on 2012-04-02 02:26:52

If I remember correctly, the game against the Bears was played in a rainstorm.

Posted by BlackKnigh on 2012-04-02 02:22:49

Ted,I forgot who said, "A conservative is someone who thinks that nothing should be done for the first time."

I agree with you about our running backs. If we had started the season with the personnel of last year, I was thinking we'd need to draft a RB, somewhat more like McGahee (Ganaway?) than Martin. But Manning changes that around. Now Moreno, McGahee, Ball (didn't he play with Manning early in his careet) and hopefully Fannin, should be more than adequate. Also, I suspect fewer injuries among the RBs due to the vastly different type of game.In addition, with the exception of Richardson, I'm not especially thrilled with this years crop of RBs. Martin is about as good as it gets after Richardson, but I'd not rate him as a 1st round pick.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2012-04-01 19:52:31

I think that if a team's offense can run the ball well, and pass the ball well, and the defense can stop the other team from running and stop the other team from passing, they will win a lot of games. But that's just my opinion. I can't prove it or anything.

Posted by A R on 2012-04-01 13:35:51

Jay, did you ever consider I wasn't referring to you? And you don't exactly have the market cornered on joking and sarcasm, my friend. ;)

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-04-01 13:21:09

Not really. It's a joke. A sarcasm font would be cool, so I don't have to bite my tongue before I can pull it back out of my cheek.

Posted by jayrockstone on 2012-04-01 12:01:31

Why do football teams run the ball? Because the rules allow it. If they didn't, there would soon be seven players on each team wearing flags instead of helmets and pads.

In eleven of the past fifteen Super Bowls, the winner has outrushed the loser. In SB XLVI, the Giants held the ball for 37:05 minutes.

In Super Bowl XXIV, the Broncos were 78% pass, 22% run. The 49ers defeated them 55-10 by going 42% pass, 58% run. That was Joe Montana running the WCO btw.

In Super Bowl XXXII, the Broncos were 36% pass, 64% run. They defeated the Packers, 31-24, who went 68% pass, 32% run.

In Super Bowl XXXIII, the Broncos were 45% pass, 55% run. They defeated the Falcons, 34-19, who went 58% pass, 42% run.

I'm sorry, but in the game of football, if you want to win you are able to run on O and stop the run on D. The four seasons prior to John Fox prove that to Bronco fans. One dimensional teams don't do well.

In spite of a continuous list of rules changes favoring the passing game spanning many years, the NFL can't seem to eliminate the advisability of being able to run the ball. Maybe the game that started to take shape in 1906 has a center of gravity that can't be eliminated.

The field, the ball, the downs, the seven line and four backs on O one of whom may move, the choice to throw or run; all of these are part of a game that can be tinkered with but not completely changed unless you eliminate one of its basic parts.

Posted by samparnell on 2012-04-01 11:18:31

Hooray, politics!

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-04-01 11:10:41

It's called taking what the defense is giving you.

Posted by c_style on 2012-04-01 10:40:39

Man, one day I compliment your wit, and the next day you go all Keith Olberman on me.(Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Thanks for the breakdown.

Posted by jayrockstone on 2012-04-01 04:54:25

Ted, thanks as always for your superior work. I may have to go watch some of Peyton's most recent games now, cuz you have me jonesing to see this stuff in action. This season cannot start soon enough!!

Posted by broncosmontana on 2012-03-31 22:43:13

Those two Super Bowls were completely different games and he was playing completely different teams with completely different game plans. But yeah, your percentages prove a lot.

Posted by Jon on 2012-03-31 15:41:43

If Caldwell is going to be the Y, do we have any judgement of how good of a blocker he is? Decker seems lacking for now as a blocker (from what I recall). Dreesen will kill it as the playside TE blocking.

I'm the smartest man alive! Haha, yes I will remember to gloat as I obviously often do if he runs for 1,000 yds as a rookie. I do like me some RB Doug Martin in a (Denver) Broncos uniform and we do need DT help, but just as you can skin a cat one way, there are many other ways to skin same cat and improve our team (FYI - I have never literally skinned a cat). Addai (a former 1st rd draft pick) greatly complimented Manning before his injuries mounted. Moreno (to me) had lost a step even bfore the ACL injury - and since % and logic matters, we should not assume he'll be faster when he gets back. McGahee doesn't feel like someone we can rely on having another great season (age, injuries). Even NE drafted Kevin Faulk as a 2nd rd (pick 46) and all he really was a 3rd down back that can block.

If Martin can just slightly improve his blocking, we've got the franchise RB we can "ride" during this 3-4 yr window - if manning holds up. BTW, assuming Manning will be Manning for 3-4 yrs is fool's gold IMO. He' could be great (mind you), but I think you need to see potential altering of Peyton now and near future vs. Peyton of old. In addition, planning for a world without Manning is prudent and this pick of Martin would also provide a safety net if we have Caleb Hanie at the helm this yr - Heaven help us.

okay, use the 1st pick for DT but I think we are passing a solid piece of the offense foundation if we don't try to land Martin in the early/mid 2nd. If we don't fortify the other pieces on the offense (which I think OL is another potential problem area, but no great talent is around in our early picks), we may end up looking like the 2011 Indy Colts.

Posted by Orange_and_Blue on 2012-03-31 15:37:45

Best player available at a position of need. That should be every team's philosophy. It would serve the Broncos well in this draft because there are so many talented DTs to be had in the first two rounds.

Oh, and great read as usual, Ted.

Posted by Xtreme212000 on 2012-03-31 15:04:51

PM calls his own plays. In his two Super Bowls, he called 47.5% pass, 52.5% run in one, and 70% pass, 30% run in the other. Which game did he win?

In the Counter play you chalked up, you have the ball carrier bouncing outside after taking Counter Steps, but the blocking is all set up for Counter Dive/Gap. Mike will start by mirroriing the RB's Counter Steps, so the G should get a Seal/Scoop on him. Run North/South when the opportunity presents itself, don't you think?

Posted by samparnell on 2012-03-31 14:49:52

@Steve Williams: In principle, I agree with your concern, but what I am hearing from most analysts is that there is a pretty deep crop of DT prospects in this year's draft, many of whom grade out as good value late in the first round. If a talented player happens to drop, you could go best player available rather than position of need, but since there seems to be a convergence of need and available talent, why not ride the wave?

Posted by Justin J on 2012-03-31 14:43:50

The Draft pick is a sunk cost; the player is an asset who can help the team.

Posted by GmanS05 on 2012-03-31 14:30:50

The problem I have is that taking best DT available could see you passing over better talent at other needy positions and will also see you potentially reaching at a guy without a 1st round grade.